a1 Hester Adrian Research Centre, University of Manchester
a2 Centre for the Applied Psychology of Social Care, University of Kent at Canterbury
Our recent attempt (Emerson and McGill, 1989) to suggest a rapprochement between normalization and applied behaviour analysis has proven to be a contentious venture. Baldwin (1989) has made a case for dismissing our argument on the grounds that it is an attempt by “normalization advocates” to take over applied behaviour analysis. He suggests that, as we have made no case for this other than “simplistic de facto moralizing” (p. 307), our paper will be transparent to behavioural practitioners whose moral integrity, it is implied, we have assaulted. In contrast, Baldwin suggests that there is a case for applied behaviour analysis subsuming normalization, although this is considered problematic because of the weakness of the latter position and the “excessive zealotry, proselytizing and evangelizing” (p. 306) of its proponents (ourselves presumably included).
Reprint requests to Eric Emerson, Hester Adrian Research Centre, The University, Manchester M13 9PL, U.K.